Time Travel Proven

stainless1911 said:

How about a law that prohibits anything imported that is not currently being manufactured in the US?

As far as chocolate goes, Marijuana cant be grown in Michigan either, its an annual tropical plant, but I've seen some of the worlds finest being grown right here.

Click to expand...

Marijuana is not nearly as difficult to grow as cocoa.

stainless1911 said:

Isolationism would restore industry to this country, and the economy would follow.

Click to expand...

North Korea is the only truly isolationist nation in the world.

How's that working out for their economy?

If one truly wants to be an isolationist, he should go off into the woods, build a cabin, grow and kill his own food, and do so with implements he fashions with his hands.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are all naturally intertwined. People are intertwined into communities. Communities network into nearly economically independent nations. It is only through the networking of nations that all of our needs are met in the most economical way. When we restrict global association, we ironically restrict Liberty by reducing choices.

Personally, I buy the best product for the price, regardless of nation of origin. If America wants my business, they need to be the best, most economical producer. We aren't for most consumer products today, mainly because labor has exercised power to overvalue the product it provides.

Fixes:

1. Ever-widening, truly free global trade.

2. Removing taxation from productivity, placing it on consumption.

3. Correcting the imbalance between those who risk capital and those who (without capital risk to themselves) provide labor.

4. A willingness to use military force against nations who threaten our ability to exist and to conduct commerce, whether directly (against us) or indirectly (through threats to other nations with which we have commercial or military alliances).

No matter how hard a candidate works to restore the Liberties in our Constitution, if he will not work equally hard for the Security for which it also provides, I cannot support him. I see him as just as dangerous to the future existence of the Republic as leaders, such as the current one, who will not work to restore Liberty. The difference is only in the speed with which the two types of leaders can destroy the Republic. Those who steadily kill Liberty will strangle the Republic. Those who would selfishly isolate it can kill it in a single blinding flash originating from an as-yet unseen enemy from whom we have isolated ourselves.

This giant should never sleep again.

Tony4310 said:

I'll keep casting my vote for Ron Paul, thanks. I'd rather cast my vote for R.P. than cast my vote for a repub or dem and waste a vote. Both parties are full of morons and globalists that have no interest in the U.S. Only making other globalists happy.

Click to expand...

If you mean in 2012, a write in vote for Paul is a vote for obooba. How much satisfaction would you Paul supporters take if he pulled enough votes from Perry to put the jackass back in the Whitehouse? Common sense is needed when the stakes are going to be so high.

Jack House said:

No imports would mean no exports. No one is going to buy from us if we refuse to buy from them. It also means that almost everything in our daily lives would run out in a few days. That computer you're using? Can't build it without imports. You need materials you can't really get here to build them. Cellphones and all computer technology would be in the same boat. Fruits would suffer shortages, as most of it is imported. Chocolate? Forget it. Cocoa plants can not be grown in America.

Stopping imports outright would destroy America faster than just about anything else.

Click to expand...

I agree, while it sounds good, look what happened with tariff wars? Just not doable in today's marketplace.

Gunslinger said:

If you mean in 2012, a write in vote for Paul is a vote for obooba. How much satisfaction would you Paul supporters take if he pulled enough votes from Perry to put the jackass back in the Whitehouse? Common sense is needed when the stakes are going to be so high.

Click to expand...

I disagree. A write in vote for a candidate that doesn't end up winning is a vote on principle. If Obama wins because of it, it simply means that there is too little difference between him and his opponent. If a write-in candidate ends up with a large amount of the vote it will bring about real change as people realize that they could have been elected.

My problem with the viewpoint you expouse is that it's a construction of the media and the establishment to keep third parties and independants down. If we are ever going to have a viable third party in this country people have to start voting on principle and not for the lesser of two evils. Constant compromise and voting for the lesser evil is one of the major reasons that our country is in this mess in the first place.

I used to think the same thing but I'm done; I've had it. I'm voting on principle from now on.

Brass Magnet said:

I disagree. A write in vote for a candidate that doesn't end up winning is a vote on principle. If Obama wins because of it, it simply means that there is too little difference between him and his opponent. If a write-in candidate ends up with a large amount of the vote it will bring about real change as people realize that they could have been elected.

My problem with the viewpoint you expouse is that it's a construction of the media and the establishment to keep third parties and independants down. If we are ever going to have a viable third party in this country people have to start voting on principle and not for the lesser of two evils. Constant compromise and voting for the lesser evil is one of the major reasons that our country is in this mess in the first place.

I used to think the same thing but I'm done; I've had it. I'm voting on principle from now on.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say here. I said I was through with voting for the lesser of the two evils after the last election.

Brass Magnet said:

I disagree. A write in vote for a candidate that doesn't end up winning is a vote on principle. If Obama wins because of it, it simply means that there is too little difference between him and his opponent. If a write-in candidate ends up with a large amount of the vote it will bring about real change as people realize that they could have been elected.

My problem with the viewpoint you expouse is that it's a construction of the media and the establishment to keep third parties and independants down. If we are ever going to have a viable third party in this country people have to start voting on principle and not for the lesser of two evils. Constant compromise and voting for the lesser evil is one of the major reasons that our country is in this mess in the first place.

I used to think the same thing but I'm done; I've had it. I'm voting on principle from now on.

Click to expand...

So am I. A vote to remove a marxist from the presidency that can have an effect on the outcome of the election is a vote on principle.

Gunslinger said:

If you mean in 2012, a write in vote for Paul is a vote for obooba. How much satisfaction would you Paul supporters take if he pulled enough votes from Perry to put the jackass back in the Whitehouse? Common sense is needed when the stakes are going to be so high.

Click to expand...

But...but...but...Perry is not perfect, while Paul is God Himself! Perry is just as bad as Obama! If we can't get perfection, we should let the country go down the tubes.

Not that I believe one single word of the above...

Personally, I like Cain. I'll take any one of the other Republicans over Obama, and I won't waste my vote on a write-in candidate who cannot possibly win--even if his ideas are not perfectly in line with mine.

eye95 said:

Such relabeling is reminiscent of pro-abortionists calling themselves "pro-choice."

Click to expand...

LOL!

This is hilarious.

You're not the one trying to force your beliefs on others. It's those damn abortionists, forcing everyone to have an abortion, whether they want one or not!

Brass Magnet said:

As a non-interventionist; I don't agree with this, and that is the difference between isolationism and non-interentionism. The reason I think isolationism doesn't work is lack of trade and diplomacy. Non-interventionism on the other hand does not encompass those same protectionist measures. IMO, if you want to have a humble foreign policy and at the same time have some peaceful infuence around the world, you need the leverage that trade and diplomacy can get you. On the other end of the extreme; for example, if you want everyone to hate you and want to destroy you, you can go around starting wars while not using diplomacy or engaging in free trade.

Click to expand...

Yup.

stainless1911 said:

We're broke because our jobs went to other countries.

Click to expand...

Nope. Unemployment can't be shown to have a correlative relationship to outsourcing (or however one might wish to characterize it), much less a causal effect.

In fact, as manufacturing jobs move to other countries, they are replaced by better, non-manufacturing-based jobs (for example, R&D and the like).

Read about Frederick Taylor and his time and motion studies. The modern factory is basically a system, the main object of which is to convert human workers into machines, drones if you will. Drones who do not challenge, question, innovate, or progress. This is what we have, you know, actual machines for. There are better uses to put American ingenuity to.

Do you really want to hedge your economy forever on manufacturing jobs? Do you want your kids to be dependent upon that in an age when machines can do any simple manufacturing task better and cheaper than humans can?

That is foolish. There are ways to create value without "manufacturing" things. For example, Apple Computer easily creates more value designing gadgets (here in the US, I might add), than do the Chinese (etc.) who own the plants which make Apple products. What to build without a constant stream of new ideas?

We don't need more factory drones, too tired to do anything but sleep after a shift. We need educated individuals who can keep us on the cutting edge of technological progress. Building stuff ain't gonna cut it.

And anyway, we do build stuff where it is economically viable. Hyundai builds plants in the US, as do Honda, Toyota, etc (while the subsidized beneficiaries of protectionist policy outsource to Mexico, I might add).

America is stronger because we have largely moved on from the rather bleak prospect of working in manufacturing jobs.

If we are broke, it is because parasitic, overblown government can't put a leash on its productivity-grabbing long enough to trim its fat and provide a value-adding service (which is what it is -- or should be -- all about) for the first time in a century.

rodbender said:

I agree with everything you say here. I said I was through with voting for the lesser of the two evils after the last election.

Click to expand...

Amen.

Besides, being that Obama is basically a perfect clone of Bush, I'm not sure what you're all complaining about.

Statists needn't worry. You'll get your way, whatever happens.

Those of us who aren't apologists for the state may not be so keen on the idea of giving our tacit approval to one who is, red or blue.

eye95 said:

If one truly wants to be an isolationist, he should go off into the woods, build a cabin, grow and kill his own food, and do so with implements he fashions with his hands.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are all naturally intertwined. People are intertwined into communities. Communities network into nearly economically independent nations. It is only through the networking of nations that all of our needs are met in the most economical way. When we restrict global association, we ironically restrict Liberty by reducing choices.

Click to expand...

That's a perfect explanation of why Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He supports free trade fully: "Commerce with all, alliance with none."

Our current interventionist foreign policy makes us more isolated from the world. Travel, trade, and association are all hampered by the elephant in the room that can't be ignored whenever Americans seek commerce with others.

Not seeking alliances would be isolationism. I don't see a downside to having allies. I see a downside to not having them though. I also agree that voting for the "lesser of two evils" is doing a disservice to yourself and the nation. It still keeps the evil candidates in office.

KBCraig said:

That's a perfect explanation of why Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He supports free trade fully: "Commerce with all, alliance with none."

Our current interventionist foreign policy makes us more isolated from the world. Travel, trade, and association are all hampered by the elephant in the room that can't be ignored whenever Americans seek commerce with others.

Click to expand...

The bolded part IS isolationism. Dangerous isolationism. "When they came for..." type isolationism. I could never support a man who would unrealistically put this nation in such danger.

He, being the lesser of two horrific evils, would get my vote were he to be the Republican challenger to Obama. Fortunately, that ain't gonna happen. His supporters are vocal, but few--and stay that way for good reason.

eye95 said:

The bolded part IS isolationism. Dangerous isolationism. "When they came for..." type isolationism. I could never support a man who would unrealistically put this nation in such danger.

He, being the lesser of two horrific evils, would get my vote were he to be the Republican challenger to Obama. Fortunately, that ain't gonna happen. His supporters are vocal, but few--and stay that way for good reason.

Click to expand...

The U.S. showed true isolationism when they imposed tarrifs to shield U.S. manufacturers and other protectionist measures in the 1920's. The U.S. at that time also turned it's back on Europe by restricting the number of immigrants allowed into the country. IIRC, you are for tarrifs and immigration restrictions? Aren't you an isolationist? I mean, if you can call Ron Paul and supporters of his isolationists for agreeing with two things out of the isolationist book, you can certainly be called one for taking two things out of that same book.

I think you are aiming for a job at Fox news. The straw poll that you posted up here on OCDO is being won, hands down, by Dr. Paul. http://forums.opencarry.com/forums/showthread.php?94001-OCDO-Straw-Poll
Yet, his supporters are so few and vocal so it doesn't count. No, it must be because we are a bunch of rights activists here at OCDO, so naturally we'd gravitate to....................huh; would you look at that, Dr. Paul.

Brass Magnet said:

The U.S. showed true isolationism when they imposed tarrifs to shield U.S. manufacturers and other protectionist measures in the 1920's. The U.S. at that time also turned it's back on Europe by restricting the number of immigrants allowed into the country. IIRC, you are for tarrifs and immigration restrictions? Aren't you an isolationist? I mean, if you can call Ron Paul and supporters of his isolationists for agreeing with two things out of the isolationist book, you can certainly be called one for taking two things out of that same book.

I think you are aiming for a job at Fox news. The straw poll that you posted up here on OCDO is being won, hands down, by Dr. Paul. http://forums.opencarry.com/forums/showthread.php?94001-OCDO-Straw-Poll
Yet, his supporters are so few and vocal so it doesn't count. No, it must be because we are a bunch of rights activists here at OCDO, so naturally we'd gravitate to....................huh; would you look at that, Dr. Paul.

Click to expand...

Note eye states he would vote for Paul--despite reservations, as being the lesser of two evils, one of which is "horrific." So would I. I wouldn't write Perry in on "principle" because there is no principle in aiding the marxist in any way, shape or form. I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for some of you, otherwise, intelligent people. Support Paul, campaign for him, send him money--but when he loses the nomination to Perry, use some common sense. Don't throw away a chance to get rid of the cosmic evil that is running this country because of inane "principle," spelled s o u r g r a p e s.

Gunslinger said:

Note eye states he would vote for Paul--despite reservations, as being the lesser of two evils, one of which is "horrific." So would I. I wouldn't write Perry in on "principle" because there is no principle in aiding the marxist in any way, shape or form. I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for some of you, otherwise, intelligent people. Support Paul, campaign for him, send him money--but when he loses the nomination to Perry, use some common sense. Don't throw away a chance to get rid of the cosmic evil that is running this country because of inane "principle," spelled s o u r g r a p e s.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...that's pretty insulting.

Well, some of us can't understand why "otherwise intelligent people" are too blind to see that there is so little difference between the two parties as to be downright laughable. In other words it really doesn't matter if you vote for statist warmonger A or statist warmonger B, but if you "waste your vote" on someone other than A or B you at least have a chance of creating some real change regardless of whether that person is elected because the idea saw support.

Further, it's your right to vote for whomever you please and I'm not trying to make anyone support Paul. I'm just sick of the bull crap, parrotted rhetoric used to marginalize him being perpetuated by "otherwise intelligent people".

I think the words Democrat, and Republican should have to be removed altogether. Let people vote for the person, on his/her merits.

Join the Empire today!

stainless1911 said:

Isolationism would restore industry to this country, and the economy would follow. I would pass a law that says "No Imports" so fast it would make your head spin. America, if you want it, build it here! Not only would it eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, it would force our manufacturers back into our borders.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The American people ought to be entitled to buy whatever they want from wherever they want. I don't want to have to rely on terrible domestic products if superior foreign products exist, and if as a matter of preference I prefer a comparable foreign product, I should be able to choose that product. By not forcing domestic producers to compete with foreign producers, there is a much reduced incentive to increase the quality of domestic products.

Whenever the government tries to control the economy, it only makes things worse. A free economy almost always will provide superior results.

If nothing could be imported, the price of everything would also become higher and the standard of living would be decreased.

You know what would move manufacturers back into our borders? Less regulation and taxes on domestic business. The regulatory burden is the biggest obstacle to U.S. business. Foreign labor is sometimes cheap, but it is far from the only reason or even the most important reason that U.S. companies are leaving. Domestic companies go elsewhere because they are stifled here.

If all imports were banned, crime related to smuggling would also likely increase.